2012 Dream Team season musings

[BiTeGumsux]

I personally would like to see rookies priced much higher to try get back the uniqueness which has disappeared from the game over the past 2 years.

You would think there would be about 28 first round draft picks. 4k differential between each first round draft pick. 28x4 = 112. Id like the first round draft pick to be up around 220-250k.

I think draftees taken outside the first round have to be increased in price. Maybe something along the lines of.

Starting rookie price 120k + 112k = 232 (first round draft pick)

Surely at 232k people would still consider a first pick like Swallow at that price and it would be a tough decision whether to pick him or not. Swallow will end up avg over 80 this year. If he was priced at 232k avg of 58 he would have been less popular but still a good pick in hindsight improving his avg by 22+.

As for the GWS 17 year olds, personally i think a 20% increase on the normal rookie price of 120k mentioned above so about 144k.

Thoughts on this, surely is a way to find a bit of differentiation between teams.

Also the thing people must consider next year is that the game could be even easier to pick players who are under priced due to the sub rule. Ill use Jimmy Bartel as an example, would be priced at about 94 right now but if you take out that subbed game where he scored 2 his avg is actually 101. This is just an example of how the sub rule will affect pricing next year.

 

[huggy_b]

You select your standard guns/rookies team to ensure you score adequately at the start.

You then have a team full of rookies after a few rounds into the season as you bring in every rookie on the bubble, using the cash generated to buy trades. Scores will dip during this time.

However, you then use your crapload of trades to downgrade rookies that have played a few games and underperforming premiums that get dropped/injured/suspended/have a high breakeven, and use the cash freed up to trade in premiums at the optimum time (eg about to drop an injury-affected score) and/or buy even more trades. Rinse and repeat. With a bit of luck and a trigger-happy finger on the trade button, you can have a team full of guns before too long.

Unless I suppose there is still a limit on how many trades you can do per week. In which case I think buying trades may be a viable change because you obviously cannot go bananas each week to grab rookies and buy trades.

Basically, if a trade is not priced very high, you can have a system where you trade in every rookie on the bubble so that you can bank trades for future use. It works because not all AFL teams play their rookie priced players continuously from Round 1. Who needs bench cover when you can just trade a player out when they miss a game?

At least, that's how I reason it would work with a trade-buying system. Actually, come to think of it, relaxing the trade limit with a maximum of 20 per season would approach the kind of system I described above as well.

But your theory is full of holes. Take Isaac Smith for example. It took him 4 games to reach $210,000 - to then downgrade him to a $90k rookie and buy a trade for $100k leaves you a net $20,000 for upgrades - hardly worth the hassle surely? You've used zero nett trades to get there which is a positive for sure, but have no money which is the whole point of having rookies?!?

Same with most of the rookies (heppell, howe, lynch etc): it takes a minimum 4 weeks of maturing to basically come out even. But you dont have any money for upgrading - so its a pointless exercise really? You'd be forever chasing your tail.

Even if you had the patience to let say Heppell peak ($300k) that took about 8 or 9 weeks, at which point you have to find a downgrade target @$90k, burn $100k on a trade and leave yourself $110k for upgrading. Then the issue is having a rookie like Heppell at around that magical $300k mark so you can upgrade to a $400k + premium.

There is no advantage I can see to maet marketing rookies to "buy trades". Its not something that can be achieved in very short time frames IMO like you seem to think can be - but I am open to correction.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Also the thing people must consider next year is that the game could be even easier to pick players who are under priced due to the sub rule. Ill use Jimmy Bartel as an example, would be priced at about 94 right now but if you take out that subbed game where he scored 2 his avg is actually 101. This is just an example of how the sub rule will affect pricing next year.

Given that he wasn't going to play any further part regardless of the sub rule, courtesy of a solid concussion, this is no different to Pendlebury's zero in 2009. The same goes for Mundy and Grimes. Have there been any players subbed off very early who actually could have come back on?

 

[BiTeGumsux]

Given that he wasn't going to play any further part regardless of the sub rule, courtesy of a solid concussion, this is no different to Pendlebury's zero in 2009. The same goes for Mundy and Grimes. Have there been any players subbed off very early who actually could have come back on?

Im just saying the sub rule makes it easy to spot under priced targets as those who have been affected by injury early in a game have had there avg decreased quite a bit. This leads to more people picking these types of players meaning uniqueness again disappears even more. Its an unlikely occurrence of being subbed or injured so early in a game so this happening twice in two years would seem unlikely and make these players value picks.

It was the reason why most people locked in N.Riewoldt this year. A game interrupted by injury affected his overall avg and its unlikely occurrence meant he was probably under priced. Hindsight has shown he wasn't, but just about everyone picked him anyway. I just think this sub rule ruins uniqueness even more, so we need to up the price of rookies to try and get some differentiation in game strategy such as the guns and rookies approach.

 

[Forward Press]

But your theory is full of holes. Take Isaac Smith for example. It took him 4 games to reach $210,000 - to then downgrade him to a $90k rookie and buy a trade for $100k leaves you a net $20,000 for upgrades - hardly worth the hassle surely? You've used zero nett trades to get there which is a positive for sure, but have no money which is the whole point of having rookies?!?

Same with most of the rookies (heppell, howe, lynch etc): it takes a minimum 4 weeks of maturing to basically come out even. But you dont have any money for upgrading - so its a pointless exercise really? You'd be forever chasing your tail.

Even if you had the patience to let say Heppell peak ($300k) that took about 8 or 9 weeks, at which point you have to find a downgrade target @$90k, burn $100k on a trade and leave yourself $110k for upgrading. Then the issue is having a rookie like Heppell at around that magical $300k mark so you can upgrade to a $400k + premium.

There is no advantage I can see to maet marketing rookies to "buy trades". Its not something that can be achieved in very short time frames IMO like you seem to think can be - but I am open to correction.

Not quite.

If you cull an Isaac, you end up with no trades lost, and 20k more in the kitty. You may also decide to do that because the rookie you downgraded to has better job security or something. I've realised though the key to this strategy is to have no trade limit so you can hop on all the rookies during the season and therefore maximise the cash gains when you cull rookies/injured premiums.

I also realise you can exploit a situation like Ablett when he went down with a 23. Trade him out for a rookie on the bubble, gain 200-300k, lose 50 points each for a couple of weeks, buy a trade or two, bring in Ablett for a maturing rookie when he's about to drop off the 23 and if he's posted two good scores since then.

If there is still a two trade per week limit however, the system is a lot less open to exploitation like that. I can see the viability in it.

Maybe I'm not conceptualising it properly.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Im just saying the sub rule makes it easy to spot under priced targets as those who have been affected by injury early in a game have had there avg decreased quite a bit. This leads to more people picking these types of players meaning uniqueness again disappears even more. Its an unlikely occurrence of being subbed or injured so early in a game so this happening twice in two years would seem unlikely and make these players value picks.

It was the reason why most people locked in N.Riewoldt this year. A game interrupted by injury affected his overall avg and its unlikely occurrence meant he was probably under priced. Hindsight has shown he wasn't, but just about everyone picked him anyway. I just think this sub rule ruins uniqueness even more, so we need to up the price of rookies to try and get some differentiation in game strategy such as the guns and rookies approach.

But as Riewoldt and Pendlebury demonstrate, it already happened. Even without the sub rule, Grimes, Bartel and Mundy would still have sat out 3.5 quarters of a game each and hence would still be underpriced.

 

[BiTeGumsux]

But as Riewoldt and Pendlebury demonstrate, it already happened. Even without the sub rule, Grimes, Bartel and Mundy would still have sat out 3.5 quarters of a game each and hence would still be underpriced.

Oh yep, i see what your saying. Yep the sub rule didnt really matter in these cases but it was just an example. Im sure Bartel would have come back on had the concussion/sub rule not been in affect.

 

[warnie]

The true 'value' in the sub rule for next year are the players who are likely to have a bit of a jump in average from this year and whose scores were affected by being the starting sub. For example, Andrew Gaff maybe? (Pulling his name out for no reason other than he has been a sub a lot of times).

There could be a few hidden mid-priced gems... we'll see... I'm not thinking about that until at least December!

 

[borrat]

another thing that annoys me is hoping certain rookies dont get a game this year because they wont be bottom price the next year josh caddy and ayce cordy for example

another example is sam reid he played the last game last year and was about 200k at the start of the year just because he played the last game which is stupid i.m.o

 

[borrat]

I personally would like to see rookies priced much higher to try get back the uniqueness which has disappeared from the game over the past 2 years.

You would think there would be about 28 first round draft picks. 4k differential between each first round draft pick. 28x4 = 112. Id like the first round draft pick to be up around 220-250k.

I think draftees taken outside the first round have to be increased in price. Maybe something along the lines of.

Starting rookie price 120k + 112k = 232 (first round draft pick)

Surely at 232k people would still consider a first pick like Swallow at that price and it would be a tough decision whether to pick him or not. Swallow will end up avg over 80 this year. If he was priced at 232k avg of 58 he would have been less popular but still a good pick in hindsight improving his avg by 22+.

As for the GWS 17 year olds, personally i think a 20% increase on the normal rookie price of 120k mentioned above so about 144k.

Thoughts on this, surely is a way to find a bit of differentiation between teams.

Also the thing people must consider next year is that the game could be even easier to pick players who are under priced due to the sub rule. Ill use Jimmy Bartel as an example, would be priced at about 94 right now but if you take out that subbed game where he scored 2 his avg is actually 101. This is just an example of how the sub rule will affect pricing next year.

you go on about teams being different

but as i have said many times beofre its the trading that sepperates the men from the boys

but its not a problem for you

 

[Parquet Court]

something that has stood out for me in this discussion is that most of us on here are DT nerds.

we all want it to be harder, have uniquer teams, less trades, higher player prices etc: etc:

i would not be surprised if the game format stayed the same next year. more trades means more site hits, less people giving up mid-season because they only have 6 trades left and 12 rounds to go and most importantly more fun for the users. more fun means that people keep doing it and it is a business in the end.

i personally dont mind the way it has gone this year, heaps of people have perfect teams and very similar teams, it makes that unique player even mroe elusive to find.

this year it was the emergence of shiels, redden, smartin, rockliff, priddis, fyfe, curnow (for a little bit) who were the unique players (some still are now, some people have gotten on by now).

this year it was even more of a risk to go unique as compared to a few seasons ago and i can see why people on here are frustrated with this season, it has almost rewarded you for going safe.

 

[huggy_b]

I also realise you can exploit a situation like Ablett when he went down with a 23. Trade him out for a rookie on the bubble, gain 200-300k, lose 50 points each for a couple of weeks, buy a trade or two, bring in Ablett for a maturing rookie when he's about to drop off the 23 and if he's posted two good scores since then.

If there is still a two trade per week limit however, the system is a lot less open to exploitation like that. I can see the viability in it.

Maybe I'm not conceptualising it properly.

But even with the Ablett scenario, he bombed his 23 at $460k, you then downgrade to a "rookie on the bubble" (if you are lucky) to nett $350k, you then propose burning $200k on buying 2 trades and then trading back up to Ablett (now $400k after his plateau) by upgrading a rookie with your $150k meaning you have to have a $250k rookie sitting around also.

Even if you just buy the single trade, ride this rookie on the bubble for 2 weeks then upgrade them with the $250k to Ablett, your likely nett gain is in the tens of thousands of dollars (if anything), but you've destroyed your scoring potential by swapping out a premium for a rookie? In the end I think you go backwards, not forwards by doing such a thing....

I still dont think it is as exploitable as you do.

 

[Lemma]

How can they fix the rules for that?

 

[Spuddage]

Woah can taste the bitterness from here! In this day and age with so many ways to connect, surely you can get access to DT on a friday arvo!

 

[GiantForce]

Fix the ****ing rules so that if a ******** gets suspended for 8 weeks for stupidity on a Friday, thousands of people don't suffer and that trades for a week are only final as at lockout on a Friday night. Not all of us can wait til the final teams are announced on a Friday night before making trades. Pretty ****ing unfair that thousands of peoples teams are railroaded cos one ****wit can't help himself from gambling and being a *******.

That's Dream Team for ya..........the game wouldn't be the same without this weird stuff happening.

 

[big_slick]

It will never happen but I'd like to see some purpose around the home vs away fixtures even come finals time. Obviously it has absolutely no bearing or advantage to be playing home or away. I'd like to see something like an added 50 points for the home team. I haven't checked the fixture exactly but it would even out of the year and come finals you would actually gain that extra edge over you opponent.

Obviously you couldn't add the 50 points to the overall total as there would be inconsistencies with multiple leagues / finals etc.

 

[Spuddage]

It will never happen but I'd like to see some purpose around the home vs away fixtures even come finals time. Obviously it has absolutely no bearing or advantage to be playing home or away. I'd like to see something like an added 50 points for the home team. I haven't checked the fixture exactly but it would even out of the year and come finals you would actually gain that extra edge over you opponent.

Obviously you couldn't add the 50 points to the overall total as there would be inconsistencies with multiple leagues / finals etc.

Could we sell home games for trades richmond style?

 

[big_slick]

Could we sell home games for trades richmond style?

Prerequisite would be to finish 9th the year prior

 

[West123]

As m0nty generally points out, VS is unlikely to implement anything that requires you to be up to the minute, i.e. making strategic decisions over the weekend because quite simply even passionate DT'ers sometimes have other things to do besides watching Port v Richmond on a Saturday night etc.

Having said that I do like the idea of reversable trades up until lockout. Furthermore, I think the rolling lockout should always be in play. Late withdrawals are too much damage. I wonder how many teams lost Prelims because Sammy Mitchell dog'd it at the last minute.

Four emergencies is also a good call. It does take away the element of luck. Once again referencing the Sammy Mitchell case I selected emergencies to cover Broughton, Cox & Voldt who all had injury cloud. Next thing I know the one spot I didn't cover is the withdrawal.

It may appear I am still hurting over the prelim loss but hey, games should be decided by 22 players not late withdrawals, especially when teams have trades + bench cover to make up the donut.

 

[GiantForce]

MN number to rise abit next year? Squads go from 33 to 30, salary cap should rise by a decent amount (Keeping in line with the actual AFL one, which it will surley get a boost with that whole players payment thing going on) and just general inflation to make the game more challenging.

 

[borrat]

really need to get rid of the double standards i.m.o

it takes 3 game for a player to change price during one season but only one between 2 seasons

im sure im not the only one hoping certain rookies dont get a game because of this bullshit rule

 

[tbetta]

I'm a big fan of the 6-8-2-6 format - the 7-6-2-7 is tired.

The result is teams having identical midfields (think swan, pendles, boys, ablett, mitchell, murphy this year), while there are not enough decent premium options in the defence or up forward to allow any real uniqueness.

Meanwhile, they are so many good midfield options that go unselected due to the lopsided structure. The argument has always been that it is supposed to mirror the AFL and team structure, but these days, mostly due to the sub-rule, teams go in with extra midfielders on their bench for rotations, rather than extra forwards/defenders.

So changing the structure to 6-8-2-6 should help with both uniqueness and reality.

Leagues will go to 18, trades back down to 20 and emergencies back to 2 in each line, as it has been in every normal season as far back as we can remember.

Also liking the idea of 'proposed trades' - ie trades you tentatively place that doesnt go into effect until lockout, so you can chop and change at any point in the week. Will work for everyone - Monday Traders don't get disadvantaged and lose interest, while VS will be happier with the extra traffic.

 

[Hank93]

I'm a big fan of the 6-8-2-6 format - the 7-6-2-7 is tired.

The result is teams having identical midfields (think swan, pendles, boys, ablett, mitchell, murphy this year), while there are not enough decent premium options in the defence or up forward to allow any real uniqueness.

Meanwhile, they are so many good midfield options that go unselected do to the lopsided structure. The argument has always been that it is supposed to mirror the AFL and team structure, but these days, mostly due to the sub-rule, teams go in with extra midfielders on their bench for rotations, rather than extra forwards/defenders.

So changing the structure to 6-8-2-6 should help with both uniqueness and reality.

Leagues will go to 18, trades back down to 20 and emergencies back to 2 in each line, as it has been in every normal season as far back as we can remember.

Also liking the idea of 'proposed trades' - ie trades you tentatively place that doesnt go into effect until lockout, so you can chop and change at any point in the week. Will work for everyone - Monday Traders don't get disadvantaged and lose interest, while VS will be happier with the extra traffic.

Agree entirely. Only thing I would change would be to have 9 mids and 1 ruck. 1 ruck reserve as well.

I think the both of your ideas will get.

 

[quin_stick]

Talk of a GWS playing the first game of the year a week before the rest of the games. That's gonna be a ****ing pain if it comes about

 

[West123]

Talk of a GWS playing the first game of the year a week before the rest of the games. That's gonna be a ****ing pain if it comes about

Would have thought the AFL would prefer to hide the 100 smashing of their new boys.